philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural world is all there exists. Please present good reasons for this world view, and why you think it provides the best explanation for our existence. I am asking for positive arguments, not arguments like : the universe is all there is, because the bible is not compelling , because there is no evidence for God etc. I am asking for arguments, that make philosophical naturalism stand by its own.

Adonai88 wrote:Naturalism helds that only the physical world exists. No evidence to back that claim up ?

I think you are correct that there is no evidence to prove that only the physical universe exists, however, neither is there evidence that anything else exists beyond it.

From our current standpoint, it is reasonable to assume that nothing exists beyond this physical universe until evidence is presented which suggests otherwise. Neither does there appear to be a need to even suggest anything beyond our current universe to explain its existence or the laws by which it is governed.

1) You're by definition asking us to prove a negative.
2) You're demanding we do so with one hand tied behind our backs by insisting that only positive arguments can be used.
3) You're assuming that anyone here would claim to know with 100% certainty that only the natural universe exists.

The fact is that there isn't a shread of credible evidence to support any supernatural claim to which I have ever been exposed. Due to this, I have yet to be given any reason to believe in the supernatural and I therefore do not believe in the supernatural.

The fact that I'm not ignorant enough to think we can know anything with 100% certainty means I do not claim to know with 100% certainty that the natural universe is all there is. However, based on what I do know, I find the existence of the supernatural highly unlikely.

"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.

Adonai88 wrote:philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural world is all there exists. Please present good reasons for this world view, and why you think it provides the best explanation for our existence. I am asking for positive arguments, not arguments like : the universe is all there is, because the bible is not compelling , because there is no evidence for God etc. I am asking for arguments, that make philosophical naturalism stand by its own.

You wish us to dispense with the negative arguments, even though they are compelling. It is pointless to posit entities whose existence is unproven and unnecessary. Refusing to allow this argument is forcing us to fight, as the previous poster stated, "with one hand tied behind our backs".
But that's OK. You wouldn't win in a fair fight. So let's leave the above argument aside for a moment.

I think we both accept that the natural world exists. Even if you wish to believe we're in a matrix-type simulation, within the rules of that simulation the "natural world" does whatever it means to exist.
The natural world is essentially a whole bunch of stuff that interacts with all the other stuff. Most (but not all) of it is made of atoms.
Anything that does not interact with the natural world and its component atoms and particles and forces, is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. Please note that I am not using the phrase "for all intents and purposes" as a mere cliché. I mean that anything that does not interact with the natural world does not exist.
Anything that does interact with the natural world is necessarily part of it. It can be measured and studied like anything else. We can hypothesise about it and perform tests to discover its nature.
We are therefore left with two categories of thing. Those that are part of the natural world, and those that do not exist.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Nope. I am asking to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true.

3) You're assuming that anyone here would claim to know with 100% certainty that only the natural universe exists.

Nope. If that would be the case, then i would be asking for definitive proofs. I am not. I am asking for good reasons and explanations, why naturalism provides the best explanation for our existence, and the existence of the universe.

The fact is that there isn't a shread of credible evidence to support any supernatural claim to which I have ever been exposed.